THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ calling for records pertaining to the Order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the 2^nd Respondent in SE No. 09 of 2018 and consequently quash the Order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent in S.E No.09 of 2018 as being patently illegal, unconstitutional and wholly without jurisdiction, and pass…”

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3, who was an employee of the petitioner Company, was terminated from service vide order dated 24.12.2015, on account of disciplinary grounds, viz., abnormal absenteeism, harassment and misbehaviour at workplace. As such, respondent No.3 was constrained to approach the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, by filing I.D.No.50 of 2016, seeking reinstatement and back wages, along with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. However, on 28.02.2017, respondent No.3 filed an application, seeking withdrawal of the said I.D., and the Labour Court dismissed the said I.D. vide order dated 13.06.2017, with an opportunity to respondent No.3 to approach the authority under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Thereafter, respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 and filed an application under Section 48 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, vide S.E.No.09 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated 13.06.2019, setting aside his termination order dated 24.12.2015, and directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.3 with full back wages, attendant/consequential benefits and continuity of service. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Shyam Sundar, learned counsel on appearing for respondent No.3.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 had earlier approached the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, and filed I.D.No.50 of 2016 on its file only as the petitioner Company fell outside the scope of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, in view of the an exemption on the Information Technology Enabled Companies under G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 21.06.2012. In the said I.D., the petitioner Company filed its counter affidavit, to show that the termination of respondent No.3 was in accordance with law. However, respondent No.3 took several adjournments on one or the other pretexts. It was further submitted that this Court granted stay of operation of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 21.06.2012, vide order dated 06.07.2016 in W.V.M.P.No.2582 of 2015 in W.P.M.P.No.43388 of 2014 in W.P.No.34685 of 2014. As such, respondent No.3 himself filed a withdrawal application in the said I.D. on 28.02.2017. Thereafter, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. filed by respondent No.3 on 13.06.2017, and granted him an opportunity to approach the authority under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, subject to the issue of limitation. The Labour Court has left the decision of delay in filing the application under Section 48 (1) of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, to the authority, i.e., respondent No.2 herein. To that effect, an award, vide G.O.Rt.No.522 dated 06.07.2017 was also published on the notice board of the Labour Court on 25.07.2017.

5. It was further submitted that after withdrawal of the said I.D., respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 and filed an application on 19.06.2017, making the same allegations against the petitioner as were made before the Labour Court. However, the said application was in itself a premature application as the award of the Labour Court dated 06.07.2017, was published only on 25.07.2017. Therefore, as per Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the said award came into force only after 30 days of its publication. It was further submitted that respondent No.3 had filed an application for condonation of a delay of 542 days in filing the